Apparatus and method for extracting restriction condition

ABSTRACT

A restriction condition extraction apparatus specifies operation targets including a first target and another target related thereto that are operated based on first procedure information in a first execution environment, extracts first procedures related to the specified operation targets from the first procedure information, generates first relation information indicating an execution order on related operation targets regarding the extracted first procedures, specifies operation targets including a second target and another target related thereto that are operated based on second procedure information in a second execution environment, extracts second procedures related to the specified operation targets from the second procedure information, generates second relation information indicating an execution order on related operation targets regarding the extracted second procedures, compares the first and the second relation information, and extracts relations of an execution order on related operation targets, which are common in the first and the second relation information.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application is based upon and claims the benefit of priority of theprior Japanese Patent Application No. 2012-261586, filed on Nov. 29,2012, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.

FIELD

The embodiment discussed herein is related to a restriction conditionextraction program, a restriction condition extraction apparatus, and arestriction condition extraction method.

BACKGROUND

There is used a cloud system that enables the use of a plurality ofcomputing resources on a network as computing resources of a user by atechnique of virtualizing a server and a network. Such a cloud system isexpanding its scale and is becoming more complicated every year.

With this, manual operations and visual confirmation performed asoperation management work are reaching limits of operators, and some ofthe operation management work has been automated. For example, amanagement server managing a cloud system applies, with use of a script,automatically a patch operation to servers under the cloud system. Thus,reliability and validity are essential to scripts used for automatingoperation management work such as patch operations.

Then, a verification system verifies whether a script to be executedsatisfies certain conditions (restriction conditions) before the scriptis executed. The restriction condition is determined by a manager in atop-down manner. A conventional example is described in JapaneseLaid-open Patent Publication No. 2005-285101.

However, it becomes difficult for the manager to construct accuratelyrestriction conditions used for script verification. That is, themanager does not necessarily understand all restriction conditions to befulfilled. For example, the manager does not understand sufficiently aconfiguration of a larger-scale cloud system or changes in devicesforming a larger-scale cloud system. Consequently, the manager can failto sufficiently understand all restriction conditions to be fulfilled.This makes it difficult for the manager to construct accuraterestriction conditions.

SUMMARY

According to an aspect of an embodiment, a non-transitorycomputer-readable recording medium stores a restriction conditionextraction program. The restriction condition extraction program causesa computer to execute a process.

The process includes first specifying operation targets including afirst target and another target related to the first target that areoperated based on first procedure information containing a plurality ofprocedures, in a first execution environment. The process includesextracting first procedures related to the operation targets specifiedat the first specifying from the first procedure information. Theprocess includes generating first relation information indicatingrelations of an execution order on related operation targets regardingthe extracted first procedures. The process includes second specifyingoperation targets including a second target and another target relatedto the second target that are operated based on second procedureinformation containing a plurality of procedures, in a second executionenvironment that is different from the first execution environment. Theprocess includes extracting second procedures related to the operationtargets specified at the second specifying from the second procedureinformation. The process includes generating second relation informationindicating relations of an execution order on related operation targetsregarding the extracted second procedures. The process includesextracting relations of an execution order on related operation targets,the relations being common in the first relation information and thesecond relation information, based on comparison between the firstrelation information and the second relation information.

The object and advantages of the invention will be realized and attainedby means of the elements and combinations particularly pointed out inthe claims.

It is to be understood that both the foregoing general description andthe following detailed description are exemplary and explanatory and arenot restrictive of the invention, as claimed.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a functional block diagram of a configuration of a restrictioncondition extraction apparatus of an embodiment;

FIG. 2 is an example diagram of operation control information;

FIG. 3 is an example diagram of an operation target list;

FIG. 4A is diagram (1) illustrating an example of system configurationinformation;

FIG. 4B is diagram (2) illustrating an example of system configurationinformation;

FIG. 5 is a diagram explaining an example of processing by an analysistarget specifying unit;

FIG. 6A is diagram (1) explaining an example of processing by arestriction candidate extracting unit;

FIG. 6B is diagram (2) explaining an example of processing by therestriction candidate extracting unit;

FIG. 7 is a diagram explaining an example of processing by an operationstate transition model constructing unit;

FIG. 8A is diagram (1) explaining an example of processing by arestriction candidate sufficiency verifying unit;

FIG. 8B is diagram (2) explaining an example of processing by therestriction candidate sufficiency verifying unit;

FIG. 9 is a diagram explaining another example of processing by theanalysis target specifying unit;

FIG. 10 is a diagram explaining another example of processing by therestriction candidate extracting unit;

FIG. 11 is a diagram explaining another example of processing by theoperation state transition model constructing unit;

FIG. 12 is a diagram explaining another example of processing by therestriction candidate sufficiency verifying unit;

FIG. 13A is diagram (1) explaining an example of processing by arestriction condition comparing unit;

FIG. 13B is diagram (2) explaining an example of processing by therestriction condition comparing unit;

FIG. 14 is a diagram of an output example of restriction conditions;

FIG. 15 is a flowchart of restriction condition extraction processing ofthe embodiment;

FIG. 16 is a diagram explaining a modification of processing by therestriction condition comparing unit; and

FIG. 17 is an example diagram of a computer executing a restrictioncondition extraction program.

DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENT

Preferred embodiments of the present invention will be explained withreference to accompanying drawings.

The embodiment does not limit the invention.

Configuration of Restriction Condition Extraction Apparatus

FIG. 1 is a functional block diagram of a configuration of a restrictioncondition extraction apparatus of the embodiment. A restrictioncondition extraction apparatus 1 extracts restriction conditions to befulfilled in an accurate operation management process. The restrictionconditions are used for evaluating the accuracy of an operationmanagement process employed in the operation management of a cloudsystem, for example. The operation management process indicates variousprocedure manuals and scripts used in the operation management on acloud system, for example. In the embodiment, the restriction conditionextraction apparatus 1 receives a plurality of past operation managementprocesses, and focuses on the relation between components represented bya system configuration when each of the received operation managementprocesses is performed. Then, the restriction condition extractionapparatus 1 extracts relations, regarding an execution order ofoperations on components having a certain relation established, whichare common in a plurality of operation management processes, and outputsthe extracted relations as restriction conditions.

As illustrated in FIG. 1, the restriction condition extraction apparatus1 receives past operation definitions 2, and outputs restrictionconditions 3. The operation definition 2 includes operation controlinformation 21, an operation target list 22, and system configurationinformation 23 as a set. The operation control information 21 is anoperation management process, and defines operation processing performedon an operation target. For example, the operation control information21 describes therein operation processing in a program form or a scriptform.

The operation target list 22 is a list representing a set of operationtargets. The system configuration information 23 is information ofsystem configuration in the operation, and defines relations establishedbetween system components. The system configuration information 23 canbe defined in a graph form or a table form. The operation targets andcomponents are physical machines such as servers, for example. However,they may be virtual machines. In the embodiment, the operation targetsand components are explained as servers. The operation definition 2 maybe stored in an external storage device of the restriction conditionextraction apparatus 1 or in a storage device of an apparatus connectedto a network.

The following describes an example of a set of operation definition 2with reference to FIGS. 2 to 4B. FIG. 2 is an example diagram of theoperation control information. FIG. 3 is an example diagram of theoperation target list. FIG. 4A is an example diagram of the systemconfiguration information in a graph form. FIG. 4B is an example diagramof the system configuration information in a table form;

As illustrated in FIG. 2, the operation control information 21 is ascript for the operation control related to the application installationapplication. The “MS” illustrated in FIG. 2 indicates a monitoringserver that monitors servers that are operation targets. The first lineof the script describes stop operation of the monitoring serverrepresented as “MS” (stop_monitor). The third line of the scriptdescribes installation operation (install) of operation targets in theoperation target list 22 represented as “List2.txt” in the second line.The fifth line of the script describes reboot operation (reboot) of theoperation targets for a case in which the installation of the operationtargets succeeds. The sixth line of the script describes restorationoperation (restore) of the states of the operation targets for a case inwhich the installation of the operation targets fails.

As illustrated in FIG. 3, the operation target list 22 describes “ServerS4”, “Server S5”, and “Server S6” as operation target devices in“List2.txt”. The “Server” indicates a server that is an operation targetdevice. For example, the “List2.txt” is read in the second line of thescript in FIG. 2. Then, the operation target devices obtained as aresult of reading the “List2.txt” is read are installed in the thirdline of the script in FIG. 2

As illustrated in FIG. 4A, the system configuration informationrepresents the relation in which the monitoring server MS monitorsservers S4, S5, and S6(monitor) and the relation in which the server S6and a server C1 are connected (communicate), and is defined in a graphform. FIG. 4B defines the system configuration information illustratedin FIG. 4A in a table form.

Returning to FIG. 1, the restriction condition extraction apparatus 1includes an analysis target specifying unit 11, a restriction candidateextracting unit 12, an operation state transition model constructingunit 13, a restriction candidate sufficiency verifying unit 14, arestriction condition comparing unit 15, and a restriction conditionstoring unit 16.

The analysis target specifying unit 11 specifies analysis targets in theoperation of a system to which the operation control information 21 isapplied. For example, the operation target list 22 and the systemconfiguration information 23 that are in the same set as the operationcontrol information 21 are input to the analysis target specifying unit11 based on the operation definition 2. Then, the analysis targetspecifying unit 11 specifies operation targets devices included in thereceived operation target list 22 as analysis target devices. Moreover,the analysis target specifying unit 11 specifies devices related to thespecified operation target devices as analysis target devices based onthe received system configuration information 23.

The restriction candidate extracting unit 12 extracts, regarding theoperation control information 21, restriction candidates that can berestrictions (hereinafter, referred to as restriction candidates) foreach of given restriction types. In the embodiment, the restrictiontypes include the following preprocessing and post-processing. Thepreprocessing is processing in which the operation Y is always performedbefore the operation X. Such preprocessing is appropriately described as“Do Y before X” in the following. The post-processing is processing inwhich the operation Y is always performed after the operation X. Suchpost-processing is appropriately described as “Do Y after X” in thefollowing. The X and Y in the preprocessing and post-processing indicateparameters representing operations performed on devices. That is, thepreprocessing and post-processing as restriction types are processingindicating the execution order of operations on devices. The restrictioncandidates are extracted for each of a plurality of pieces of operationcontrol information 21.

For example, the restriction candidate extracting unit 12 extracts, fromthe operation control information 21, operations that can be correspondto X and Y in the preprocessing and post-processing as restrictiontypes. To be more specific, the restriction candidate extracting unit 12extracts operations related to the analysis target devices specified bythe analysis target specifying unit 11 from the operation controlinformation 21. Then, the restriction candidate extracting unit 12extracts, using the preprocessing with parameterized operation parts andthe operations related to the analysis target devices, restrictioncandidates for the preprocessing considering the system configurationsof the analysis target devices. Similarly, the restriction candidateextracting unit 12 extracts, using the post-processing withparameterized operation parts and the operations related to the analysistarget devices, restriction candidates for the post-processingconsidering the system configurations of the analysis target devices.The restriction candidate extracting unit 12 extracts restrictioncandidates for the preprocessing and post-processing without consideringan actual operation execution order described in the operation controlinformation 21.

The operation state transition model constructing unit 13 converts anoperation string of the operation control information 21 intodescription for a model verification tool, and constructs a statetransition model regarding operations. Each state in the statetransition model is an execution state of an operation related to theanalysis target device specified by the analysis target specifying unit11.

The restriction candidate sufficiency verifying unit 14 verifies thesufficiency of each restriction candidate regarding the operationcontrol information 21 with use of the state transition modelconstructed based on the operation control information 21. For example,the restriction candidate sufficiency verifying unit 14 detects averification result indicating that the sufficiency is fulfilled or averification result indicating that the sufficiency is not fulfilled foreach extracted restriction candidate. Then, the restriction candidatesufficiency verifying unit 14 generates restriction candidateinformation including the verification result for each extractedrestriction candidate. To be more specific, the restriction candidatesufficiency verifying unit 14 generates, for one operation definition 2,restriction candidate information for the preprocessing and restrictioncandidate information for the post-processing.

The restriction condition comparing unit 15 compares a plurality ofpieces of restriction candidate information generated based on aplurality of operation definitions 2, and extracts restrictioncandidates Existent in the plurality of operation definitions 2 asrestriction conditions. That is, the restriction condition comparingunit 15 compares a plurality of pieces of restriction candidateinformation, and extracts restriction candidates of related devices or asingle device, which are common in the plurality of pieces ofrestriction candidate information, as restriction conditions. Forexample, the restriction condition comparing unit 15 comparesrestriction candidate information regarding the preprocessing betweentwo operation definitions 2. Then, the restriction condition comparingunit 15 extracts restriction candidates existent in the two operationdefinitions 2 as restriction conditions. Similarly, the restrictioncondition comparing unit 15 compares restriction candidate informationregarding the post-processing between two operation definitions 2. Then,the restriction condition comparing unit 15 extracts restrictioncandidates existent in the two operation definitions 2 as restrictionconditions. Moreover, the restriction condition comparing unit 15 storesthe extracted restriction conditions in the restriction conditionstoring unit 16 described later.

It is assumed, as an example, that a restriction candidate fulfillingthe sufficiency for the preprocessing in one operation definition 2 is“Do stop_monitor (MS) before start_monitor (MS)” and a restrictioncandidate fulfilling the sufficiency for the preprocessing in the otheroperation definition 2 is “Do stop_monitor (MS) before start_monitor(MS)”. In this case, both restriction candidates are matched, and thusthe restriction condition comparing unit 15 extracts the matchedrestriction candidate as a restriction condition.

The restriction condition storing unit 16 stores restriction conditionsstored by the restriction condition comparing unit 15.

Next, an example of processing of generating restriction candidateinformation for the preprocessing and restriction candidate informationfor the post-processing based on one operation definition 2 will beexplained with reference to FIGS. 5 to 8B.

Example of Processing by Analysis Target Specifying Unit

First, an example of processing by the analysis target specifying unit11 is described with reference to FIG. 5. FIG. 5 is a diagram explainingan example of processing by the analysis target specifying unit. Asillustrated in FIG. 5, the operation target list 22 (List1.txt) of theoperation definition 2 describes therein “Server S1” indicating a serverS1, “Server S2” indicating a server S2, and “Server S3” indicating aserver S3 as operation target devices. The system configurationinformation 23 of the operation definition 2 defines the relation inwhich the monitoring server MS monitors the servers S1, S2, and S3(monitor) as system configuration information.

The analysis target specifying unit 11 specifies the servers S1, S2, andS3 as analysis target devices based on the operation target list 22. Theanalysis target specifying unit 11 also specifies the monitoring serverMS that is a device related to the servers S1, S2, and S3 that are thespecified operation target devices, as an analysis target device, basedon the system configuration information 23. That is, the analysis targetspecifying unit 11 specifies the servers S1, S2, and S3, and the serverMS as analysis target devices.

Example of Processing by Restriction Candidate Extracting Unit

Next, an example of processing by the restriction candidate extractingunit 12 is described with reference to FIGS. 6A and 6B. FIGS. 6A and 6Bare diagrams explaining an example of processing by the restrictioncandidate extracting unit.

As illustrated in FIG. 6A, the operation control information 21 is ascript for the operation control related to server patch applicationoperation. The analysis target devices are the servers S1, S2, and S3,and the monitoring server MS specified by the analysis target specifyingunit 11. It is assumed that the preprocessing as one of restrictiontypes is “Do Y before X” indicating that the operation Y is alwaysperformed before the operation X. It is also assumed that thepost-processing as one of restriction types is “Do Y after X” indicatingthat the operation Y is always performed after the operation X. The Xand Y in the preprocessing and post-processing are parametersrepresenting operations performed on devices.

The restriction candidate extracting unit 12 extracts operations relatedto the analysis target devices from the operation control information21. That is, the restriction candidate extracting unit 12 extractsoperations that can be included in X and Y in the preprocessing andpost-processing in accordance with the analysis target devices.Regarding the monitoring server MS, the restriction candidate extractingunit 12 extracts “stop_monitor” indicating the operation for stopping amonitoring function and “start_monitor” indicating the operation forrestarting the monitoring function. Regarding the servers S1, S2, andS3, the restriction candidate extracting unit 12 extracts “apply_patch”indicating the operation for applying a patch and “reboot” indicatingthe rebooting operation.

As illustrated in FIG. 6B, the restriction candidate extracting unit 12extracts, using the preprocessing “Do Y before X” with parameterizedoperation parts and the operations related to the analysis targetdevices, restriction candidates for the preprocessing considering systemconfigurations of the analysis target devices. Regarding only themonitoring server MS, “Do stop_monitor (MS) before start_monitor (MS)”is extracted as one restriction candidate k1, for example. Regardingonly the server S1, “Do apply_patch (S1, Patch) before reboot (S1)” isextracted as one restriction candidate k2, for example. Regarding boththe monitoring server MS and the server S1, “Do stop_monitor (MS) beforeapply_patch (S1, Patch)” is extracted as one restriction candidate k3,for example. The restriction candidate extracting unit 12 does notconsider an execution order of operations, and thus extracts restrictioncandidates in which the operations of X and Y are made opposite.Furthermore, the restriction candidate extracting unit 12 extractsrestriction candidates for the preprocessing regarding only the serverS2, only the server S3, both the monitoring server MS and the server S2,and both the monitoring server MS and the server S3.

Then, the restriction candidate extracting unit 12 extracts, using thepost-processing “Do Y after X” with parameterized operation parts andthe operations related to the analysis target devices, restrictioncandidates for the post-processing considering system configurations ofthe analysis target devices. Regarding only the monitoring server MS,“Do stop_monitor (MS) after start_monitor (MS)” is extracted as onerestriction candidate k4, for example. Regarding only the server S1, “Doapply_patch (S1, Patch) after reboot (S1)” is extracted as onerestriction candidate k5, for example. Regarding both the monitoringserver MS and the server S1, “Do stop_monitor (MS) after apply_patch(S1, Patch)” is extracted as one restriction candidate k6, for example.The restriction candidate extracting unit 12 does not consider anexecution order of operations, and thus extracts restriction candidatesin which the operations of X and Y are made opposite. Furthermore, therestriction candidate extracting unit 12 extracts restriction candidatesfor the post-processing regarding only the server S2, only the serverS3, both the monitoring server MS and the server S2, and both themonitoring server MS and the server S3.

Example of Processing by Operation State Transition Model ConstructingUnit

Next, an example of processing by the operation state transition modelconstructing unit 13 is described with reference to FIG. 7. FIG. 7 is adiagram explaining an example of processing by the operation statetransition model constructing unit. As illustrated in FIG. 7, theoperation state transition is constructed based on the operation controlinformation 21. That is, the operation state transition modelconstructing unit 13 constructs a state transition model related tooperations based on an operation string of the operation controlinformation 21. Each state in the operation state transition modelcorresponds to an execution state of an operation related to theanalysis target device. The operation state transition constructed basedon the operation control information 21 describes therein that“stop_monitor” is executed on the monitoring server MS, for example. Inaddition, the operation state transition describes therein that“apply_patch” is executed on the server s1 after “stop_monitor” isexecuted, and “reboot” is executed on the server s1 when the applicationof a patch succeeds, or “start_monitor” is executed on the monitoringserver MS when the application of a patch fails. The operation statetransition constructed by the operation state transition modelconstructing unit 13 is used by the restriction candidate sufficiencyverifying unit 14 for restriction candidate sufficiency verification.

Example of Processing by Restriction Candidate Sufficiency VerifyingUnit

Next, an example of processing by the restriction candidate sufficiencyverifying unit 14 is described with reference to FIGS. 8A and 8B. FIGS.8A and 8B are diagrams explaining an example of processing by therestriction candidate sufficiency verifying unit.

As illustrated in FIG. 8A, the restriction candidate sufficiencyverifying unit 14 performs restriction candidate sufficiencyverification of restriction candidates extracted by the restrictioncandidate extracting unit 12 using the operation state transitionconstructed by the operation state transition model constructing unit13, and detects a verification result for each restriction candidate.The verification result is represented with “Allowed” when a restrictioncandidate fulfills the sufficiency, and with “Denied” when a restrictioncandidate does not fulfill the sufficiency. Then, the restrictioncandidate sufficiency verifying unit 14 generates restriction candidateinformation including the verification result for each restrictioncandidate.

The upper table of the FIG. 8B represents restriction candidateinformation including the verification results of restriction candidatesfor the preprocessing. The verification result is “Allowed” regardingthe restriction candidate “Do stop_monitor (MS) Before start_monitor(MS)”, that is, the restriction candidate in which the operation“stop_monitor (MS)” is always performed before the operation“start_monitor (MS)”, for example. As another example, the verificationresult is “Allowed” regarding the restriction candidate “Do stop_monitor(MS) Before apply_patch (s, Patch)”, that is, the restriction candidatein which the operation “stop_monitor (MS)” is always performed beforethe operation “apply_patch (s, Patch)”. By contrast, the verificationresult is “Denied” regarding the restriction candidate “Do start_monitor(MS) Before stop_monitor (MS)”, that is, the restriction candidate inwhich the operation “start_monitor (MS)” is always performed before theoperation “stop_monitor (MS)”.

The lower table of the FIG. 8B represents restriction candidateinformation including the verification results of restriction candidatesfor the post-processing. The verification result is “Allowed” regardingthe restriction candidate “Do start_monitor (MS) After stop_monitor(MS)”, that is, the restriction candidate in which the operation“start_monitor (MS)” is always performed after the operation“stop_monitor (MS)”, for example. As another example, the verificationresult is “Allowed” regarding the restriction candidate “Dostart_monitor (MS) After apply_patch (s, Patch)”, that is, therestriction candidate in which the operation “start_monitor (MS)” isalways performed after the operation “apply_patch (s, Patch)”. Bycontrast, the verification result is “Denied” regarding the restrictioncandidate “Do stop_monitor (MS) After start_monitor (MS)”, that is, therestriction candidate in which the operation “stop_monitor (MS)” isalways performed after the operation “start_monitor (MS)”.

In this manner, the restriction candidate information for thepreprocessing and the restriction candidate information for thepost-processing are generated based on the operation definition 2including the script(operation control information 21) for the operationcontrol related to server patch application operation (regarded asoperation A), for example. The following describes an example ofprocessing of generating restriction candidate information for thepreprocessing and restriction candidate information for thepost-processing based on another operation definition 2 with referenceto FIGS. 9 to 12.

Another Example of Processing by Analysis Target Specifying Unit

First, another example of processing by the analysis target specifyingunit 11 is described with reference to FIG. 9. FIG. 9 is a diagramexplaining another example of processing by the analysis targetspecifying unit. As illustrated in FIG. 9, the operation target list 22(List1.txt) of the operation definition 2 describes therein “Server S4”indicating a server S4, “Server S5” indicating a server S5, and “ServerS6” indicating a server S6as operation target devices. The systemconfiguration information 23 of the operation definition 2 defines therelation in which the monitoring server MS monitors the servers S4, S5,and S6 (monitor) as system configuration information.

The analysis target specifying unit 11 specifies the servers S4, S5, andS6 as analysis target devices based on the operation target list 22. Theanalysis target specifying unit 11 also specifies the monitoring serverMS that is a device related to the servers S4, S5, and S6 that are thespecified operation target devices, as an analysis target device, basedon the system configuration information 23. That is, the analysis targetspecifying unit 11 specifies the servers S4, S5, and S6, and the serverMS as analysis target devices.

Another Example of Processing by Restriction Candidate Extracting Unit

Next, another example of processing by the restriction candidateextracting unit 12 is described with reference to FIG. 10. FIG. 10 is adiagram explaining another example of processing by the restrictioncandidate extracting unit.

As illustrated in FIG. 10, the operation control information 21 is ascript for the operation control related to application installationoperation. The analysis target devices are the servers S4, S5, and S6,and the monitoring server MS specified by the analysis target specifyingunit 11. The preprocessing and the post-processing are the same asprocessing described above. That is, the preprocessing is “Do Y beforeX” indicating that the operation Y is always performed before theoperation X, and the post-processing is “Do Y after X” indicating thatthe operation Y is always performed after the operation X. The X and Yin the preprocessing and post-processing are parameters representingoperations performed on devices.

The restriction candidate extracting unit 12 extracts operations relatedto the analysis target devices from the operation control information21. That is, the restriction candidate extracting unit 12 extractsoperations that can be included in X and Y in the preprocessing andpost-processing in accordance with the analysis target devices.Regarding the monitoring server MS, the restriction candidate extractingunit 12 extracts “stop_monitor” indicating the operation for stopping amonitoring function and “start_monitor” indicating the operation forrestarting the monitoring function. Regarding the servers S4, S5, andS6, the restriction candidate extracting unit 12 extracts “install”indicating the installation operation, “reboot” indicating the rebootingoperation, and “restore” indicating the operation for restoring thestate.

Then, the restriction candidate extracting unit 12 extracts, using thepreprocessing “Do Y before X” with parameterized operation parts and theoperations related to the analysis target devices, restrictioncandidates for the preprocessing considering system configurations ofthe analysis target devices. Moreover, the restriction candidateextracting unit 12 extracts, using the post-processing “Do Y after X”with parameterized operation parts and the operations related to theanalysis target devices, restriction candidates for the post-processingconsidering system configurations of the analysis target devices. Theextraction result is represented in the table form illustrated in FIG.6B although it is not illustrated here.

Another Example of Processing by Operation State Transition ModelConstructing Unit

Next, another example of processing by the operation state transitionmodel constructing unit 13 is described with reference to FIG. 11. FIG.11 is a diagram explaining another example of processing by theoperation state transition model constructing unit. As illustrated inFIG. 11, the operation state transition is constructed based on theoperation control information 21. That is, the operation statetransition model constructing unit 13 constructs a state transitionmodel related to operations based on an operation string of theoperation control information 21. The operation state transitionconstructed based on the operation control information 21 describestherein that “stop_monitor” is executed on the monitoring server MS, forexample. In addition, the operation state transition describes thereinthat “install” is executed on the server s4 after “stop_monitor” isexecuted, and “reboot” is executed when the installation succeeds, or“restore” is executed when the installation fails. The operation statetransition constructed by the operation state transition modelconstructing unit 13 is used by the restriction candidate sufficiencyverifying unit 14 for restriction candidate sufficiency verification.

Another Example of Processing by Restriction Candidate SufficiencyVerifying Unit

Next, another example of processing by the restriction candidatesufficiency verifying unit 14 is described with reference to FIG. 12.FIG. 12 is a diagram explaining another example of processing by therestriction candidate sufficiency verifying unit.

As illustrated in FIG. 12, the restriction candidate sufficiencyverifying unit 14 performs restriction candidate sufficiencyverification of restriction candidates extracted by the restrictioncandidate extracting unit 12 using the operation state transitionconstructed by the operation state transition model constructing unit13, and detects a verification result for each restriction candidate.The verification result is represented with “Allowed” when a restrictioncandidate fulfills the sufficiency, and with “Denied” when a restrictioncandidate does not fulfill the sufficiency. Then, the restrictioncandidate sufficiency verifying unit 14 generates restriction candidateinformation including the verification result for each restrictioncandidate.

The upper table of FIG. 12 represents restriction candidate informationincluding the verification results of restriction candidates for thepreprocessing. The verification result is “Allowed” regarding therestriction candidate “Do stop_monitor (MS) Before start_monitor (MS)”,that is, the restriction candidate in which the operation “stop_monitor(MS)” is always performed before the operation “start_monitor (MS)”, forexample. As another example, the verification result is “Allowed”regarding the restriction candidate “Do stop_monitor (MS) Before install(s)”, that is, the restriction candidate in which the operation“stop_monitor (MS)” is always performed before the operation “install(s)”. By contrast, the verification result is “Denied” regarding therestriction candidate “Do start_monitor (MS) Before stop_monitor (MS)”,that is, the restriction candidate in which the operation “start_monitor(MS)” is always performed before the operation “stop_monitor (MS)”.

The lower table of the FIG. 12 represents restriction candidateinformation including the verification results of restriction candidatesfor the post-processing. The verification result is “Allowed” regardingthe restriction candidate “Do start_monitor (MS) After stop_monitor(MS)”, that is, the restriction candidate in which the operation“start_monitor (MS)” is always performed after the operation“stop_monitor (MS)”, for example. As another example, the verificationresult is “Allowed” regarding the restriction candidate “Dostart_monitor (MS) After install (s)”, that is, the restrictioncandidate in which the operation “start_monitor (MS)” is alwaysperformed after the operation “install (s)”. By contrast, theverification result is “Denied” regarding the restriction candidate “Dostop_monitor (MS) After start_monitor (MS)”, that is, the restrictioncandidate in which the operation “stop_monitor (MS)” is always performedafter the operation “start_monitor (MS)”.

In this manner, the restriction candidate information for thepreprocessing and the restriction candidate information for thepost-processing are generated based on the operation definition 2including the script (operation control information 21) for theoperation control related to application installation operation(regarded as operation B), for example. The following describes anexample of processing of extracting restriction conditions from therestriction candidate information generated by the operation A and therestriction candidate information generated by the operation B withreference to FIGS. 13A and 13B.

Example of Processing by Restriction Condition Comparing Unit

FIGS. 13A and 13B are diagrams explaining an example of processing bythe restriction condition comparing unit. The upper table of FIG. 13Arepresents restriction candidate information including the verificationresults of restriction candidates for the preprocessing regarding theoperation A. The lower table of FIG. 13B represents restrictioncandidate information including the verification results of restrictioncandidates for the preprocessing regarding the operation B.

The restriction condition comparing unit 15 compares restrictioncandidate information regarding a plurality of operations A and B, andextracts restriction candidates existent (common) in both operations Aand B as restriction conditions. The restriction candidate “Dostop_monitor (MS) Before start_monitor (MS)”, that is, the restrictioncandidate in which the operation “stop_monitor (MS)” is always performedbefore the operation “start_monitor (MS)” is matched between theoperations A and B. Moreover, the restriction candidate “Do stop_monitor(MS) Before reboot (s)”, that is, the restriction candidate in which theoperation “stop_monitor (MS)” is always performed before the operation“reboot (s)” is matched between the operations A and B.

Thus, the restriction condition comparing unit 15 extracts “Dostop_monitor (MS) before start_monitor (MS)” as a restriction conditionfor the preprocessing. That is, the restriction condition comparing unit15 extracts the restriction condition related to an execution order on asingle device, that is, the single monitoring server MS, here. Moreover,the restriction condition comparing unit 15 extracts “Do stop_monitor(MS) before reboot (s) (if MS monitors s)” as a restriction conditionfor the preprocessing. That is, the restriction condition comparing unit15 extracts the restriction condition related to an execution order onrelated devices, that is, the monitoring server MS and the server s,here.

The upper table of FIG. 13B represents restriction candidate informationincluding the verification results of restriction candidates for thepost-processing regarding the operation A. The lower table of FIG. 13Brepresents restriction candidate information including the verificationresults of restriction candidates for the post-processing regarding theoperation B.

The restriction condition comparing unit 15 compares restrictioncandidate information regarding a plurality of operations A and B, andextracts restriction candidates existent (common) in both operations Aand B as restriction conditions. The restriction candidate “Dostart_monitor (MS) After stop_monitor (MS)”, that is, the restrictioncandidate in which the operation “start_monitor (MS)” is alwaysperformed after the operation “stop_monitor (MS)” is matched between theplurality of operations A and B. Moreover, the restriction candidate “Dostart_monitor (MS) After reboot (s)”, that is, the restriction candidatein which the operation “start_monitor (MS)” is always performed afterthe operation “reboot (s)” is matched between the operations A and B.

Thus, the restriction condition comparing unit 15 extracts “Dostart_monitor (MS) after stop_monitor (MS)” as a restriction conditionfor the post-processing. That is, the restriction condition comparingunit 15 extracts the restriction condition related to an execution orderon a single device, that is, the single monitoring server MS, here.Moreover, the restriction condition comparing unit 15 extracts “Dostart_monitor (MS) after reboot (s) (if MS monitors s)” as a restrictioncondition for the post-processing. That is, the restriction conditioncomparing unit 15 extracts the restriction condition related to anexecution order on related devices, that is, the monitoring server MSand the server s, here. Then, the restriction condition comparing unit15 stores the extracted restriction conditions for the post-processingin the restriction condition storing unit 16.

The restriction condition extraction apparatus 1 may output restrictionconditions stored in the restriction condition storing unit 16. FIG. 14is a diagram of an output example of restriction conditions extracted inFIGS. 13A and 13B. The n and m in FIG. 14 indicate operation targetdevices that are system components, and the n is a different device fromthe m. In the output example of FIG. 14, a relation between n and m o1,an operation o2, a relation between operations o3, and an operation o4are output in an associated manner. The relation between n and m o1represents a relation between the components of a device subjected tothe operation o2 and a device subjected to the operation o4. Forexample, when the device subjected to the operation o2 and the devicesubjected to the operation o4 are same, “-” is output indicating thatthere is no relation between the components, that is, a singlecomponent. When a device subjected to the operation o2 and anotherdevice subjected to the operation o4 and one of the devices monitors theother, “monitor” is output indicating that there is a monitor relation.The operation o2 and the operation o4 indicate operations forming arestriction condition. The relation between operations o3 indicates arelation between the operations of the operation o2 and the operationo4. For example, “before” is output indicating that the operation o2 ispreprocessing of the operation o4, or “after” is output indicating thatthe operation o2 is post-processing of the operation o4.

For example, when the relation between n and m o1 is “-”, “stop_monitor(n)” as the operation o2, “before” as the relation between operationso3, and “start_monitor (n)” as the operation o4 are output. That is, therestriction condition defined by these outputs is a restrictioncondition for the preprocessing related to a single component (n) “Dostop_monitor (MS) before start_monitor (MS)”. Alternatively, when therelation between n and m o1 is “-”, “start_monitor (n)” as the operationo2, “after” as the relation between operations o3, and “stop_monitor(n)” as the operation o4 are output. That is, the restriction conditiondefined by these outputs is a restriction condition for thepost-processing related to a single component (n) “Do start_monitor (n)after stop_monitor (n)”. Alternatively, when the relation between n andm o1 is “monitor”, “stop_monitor (n)” as the operation o2, “before” asthe relation between operations o3, and “reboot (m)” as the operation o4are output. That is, the restriction condition defined by these outputsis a restriction condition for the preprocessing related to thecomponents n and m in a monitor relation “Do stop_monitor (n) beforereboot (m)”. Alternatively, when the relation between n and m o1 is“monitor”, “start_monitor (n)” as the operation o2, “after” as therelation between operations o3, and “reboot (m)” as the operation o4 areoutput. That is, the restriction condition defined by these outputs is arestriction condition for the post-processing related to the componentsn and m in a monitor relation “Do start_monitor (n) After reboot (m)”.

Procedure of Restriction Condition Extraction Processing

Next, the procedure of restriction condition extraction processing isdescribed with reference to FIG. 15. FIG. 15 is a flowchart ofrestriction condition extraction processing of the embodiment. It isassumed that an input device (not illustrated) has ordered therestriction condition extraction apparatus 1 to start restrictioncondition extraction processing, for example.

The restriction condition extraction apparatus 1 ordered to startrestriction condition extraction processing selects the operationdefinition 2 to be analyzed (Step S11). Then, the analysis targetspecifying unit 11 specifies analysis target devices based on theselected operation definition 2 (Step S12). For example, the analysistarget specifying unit 11 specifies analysis target devices using theoperation target list 22 and the system configuration information 23included in the selected operation definition 2 (Step S12).

Subsequently, the restriction candidate extracting unit 12 extractsrestriction candidates using the specified analysis target devices andthe operation control information 21 included in the selected operationdefinition 2 (Step S13). For example, the restriction candidateextracting unit 12 extracts operations related to the analysis targetdevices specified by the analysis target specifying unit 11 from theoperation control information 21. Then, the restriction candidateextracting unit 12 extracts, using the preprocessing with parameterizedoperation parts and the operations related to the analysis targetdevices, restriction candidates for the preprocessing considering systemconfigurations of the analysis target devices. Moreover, the restrictioncandidate extracting unit 12 extracts, using the post-processing withparameterized operation parts and the operations related to the analysistarget devices, restriction candidates for the post-processingconsidering system configurations of the analysis target devices. Thepreprocessing indicates processing related to an operation executionorder in which the operation Y is always performed before the operationX, and the post-processing indicates processing related to an operationexecution order in which the operation Y is always performed after theoperation X. The X and Y are parameters indicating operations performedon devices.

Next, the operation state transition model constructing unit 13constructs an operation state transition model based on the operationcontrol information 21 (Step S14).

Then, the restriction candidate sufficiency verifying unit 14 verifiesthe sufficiency of each restriction candidate extracted by therestriction candidate extracting unit 12 using the constructed operationstate transition model (Step S15). The restriction candidate sufficiencyverifying unit 14 temporarily stores the verification result for eachextracted restriction candidate (Step S16). For example, the restrictioncandidate sufficiency verifying unit 14 generates restriction candidateinformation for the preprocessing including the verification result foreach restriction candidate. Moreover, the restriction candidatesufficiency verifying unit 14 generates restriction candidateinformation for the post-processing including the verification resultfor each restriction candidate. Then, the restriction candidatesufficiency verifying unit 14 stores therein the generated restrictioncandidate information for the preprocessing and the generatedrestriction candidate information for the post-processing.

Subsequently, the restriction condition extraction apparatus 1determines whether the operation definitions 2 to be analyzed are allselected (Step S17). When the restriction condition extraction apparatus1 determines that the operation definitions 2 to be analyzed are not allselected (No at Step S17), it shifts the procedure to Step S11 to selectthe operation definition 2 that has not been selected.

By contrast, when the restriction condition extraction apparatus 1determines that the operation definitions 2 to be analyzed are allselected (Yes at Step S17), the restriction condition comparing unit 15compares restriction candidate information generated based on aplurality of operation definitions 2, and extracts common restrictioncandidates as restriction conditions (Step S18). For example, therestriction condition comparing unit 15 compares restriction candidateinformation for the preprocessing between a plurality of operationdefinitions 2, and extracts common restriction candidates as restrictionconditions. Moreover, the restriction condition comparing unit 15compares restriction candidate information for the post-processingbetween a plurality of operation definitions 2, and extracts commonrestriction candidates as restriction conditions. Thus, the restrictioncondition extraction processing is ended. Thereafter, the restrictioncondition comparing unit 15 stores the extracted restriction conditionsfor the preprocessing and the extracted restriction conditions for thepost-processing in the restriction condition storing unit 16.

In this manner, the restriction condition extraction apparatus 1 canaccurately extract common restriction conditions being fulfilled in aplurality of operation definitions 2 among the past various operationdefinitions 2. That is, the restriction condition extraction apparatus 1focuses on the relation between components of the system, and extractsrestriction conditions for the preprocessing (post-processing),regarding the components having a certain relation established, whichare common in a plurality of operation definitions 2. Thus, therestriction condition extraction apparatus 1 can accurately extractrestriction conditions fulfilled commonly in the operation definitions 2defining different operations on different components.

In the above embodiment, the restriction condition comparing unit 15compares a plurality of pieces of restriction candidate information, andextracts restriction candidates, regarding related devices or a singledevice, which are common in the plurality of pieces of restrictioncandidate information. In the embodiment, what is common is described aswhat is matched, for example. However, what is common is not limited towhat is matched, and may be a fact that a match rate is higher than athreshold. Then, as a modification of processing by the restrictioncondition comparing unit 15, the following describes a case in which therestriction condition comparing unit 15 extracts, as restrictionconditions, restriction candidates that are common in a plurality ofpieces of restriction candidate information and whose match rate ishigher than a threshold regarding related devices or a single device.

FIG. 16 is a diagram explaining a modification of processing by therestriction condition comparing unit. The left tables of FIG. 16describe therein restriction candidate information including theverification results of restriction candidates regarding a plurality ofscripts a to d (operation control information 21). The scripts areexamples of the operation control information 2. It is assumed that suchrestriction candidate information is information for thepost-processing. For the convenience of description, it is assumed thatthe operations corresponding to X and Y in the restriction candidateinformation regarding the scripts a to d, which are extracted by therestriction candidate extracting unit 12, are all same, respectively.The description of devices performing each operation is omitted.

The restriction condition comparing unit 15 compares restrictioncandidate information regarding a plurality of scripts a to d, andcalculates a match rate for each restriction candidate. The match rateis 4/4 regarding the restriction candidate “Do start_mon After install”,that is, the restriction candidate in which the operation “start_mon” isalways performed after the operation “install”. Moreover, the match rateis 3/4 regarding the restriction candidate “Do install After stop_mon”,that is, the restriction candidate in which the operation “install” isalways performed after the operation “stop_mon”. Furthermore, the matchrate is 2/4 regarding the restriction candidate “Do reboot Afterinstall”, that is, the restriction candidate in which the operation“reboot” is always performed after the operation “install”.

Then, the restriction condition comparing unit 15 extracts restrictioncandidates whose match rate is higher than a threshold as restrictionconditions. The threshold is set to be 50%, for example. Then, therestriction condition comparing unit 15 extracts “Do start_mon Afterinstall” whose match rate is 100%, “Do install After stop_mon” whosematch rate is 75%, and “Do reboot After install” whose match rate is 50%as restriction conditions.

In this manner, with use of a restriction candidate match rate inrestriction condition extraction, the restriction condition comparingunit 15 can extract various restriction conditions in accordance withthe reliability of restriction conditions.

Effects of Embodiment

In the above embodiment, the restriction condition extraction apparatus1 specifies analysis target devices including operation target devicesand devices related to the operation target devices that are operatedbased on the operation control information 21, in a system executionenvironment. Then, the restriction condition extraction apparatus 1extracts the operations related to the specified analysis target devicesfrom the operation control information 21. Subsequently, the restrictioncondition extraction apparatus 1 generates relation information(restriction candidate information) indicating the relation of anexecution order on related devices, with respect to the extractedoperations. Then, the restriction condition extraction apparatus 1compares a plurality of pieces of restriction candidate information, andextracts the relation of an execution order on related devices(restriction candidates), which are common in the plurality of pieces ofrestriction candidate information, as restriction conditions. In thisconfiguration, the restriction condition extraction apparatus 1 focuseson the relation between components of the system, and extractsrestriction candidates, regarding related components, which are commonin a plurality of pieces of operation control information 21, asrestriction conditions. In this manner, the restriction conditionextraction apparatus 1 can extract accurately restriction conditionsfulfilled commonly in the respective pieces of the operation controlinformation 21 defining different operations on components in differentexecution environment systems.

In the above embodiment, the restriction condition extraction apparatus1 compares a plurality of pieces of relation information (restrictioncandidate information), and extracts the relation of an execution orderon related devices (restriction candidates), which are common with arate higher than a given rate in the plurality of pieces of restrictioncandidate information. In such a configuration, with use of arestriction candidate match rate in restriction condition extraction,the restriction condition extraction apparatus 1 can extract variousrestriction conditions in accordance with the reliability of restrictionconditions.

Others

The restriction condition extraction apparatus 1 can be achieved byadding functions of the analysis target specifying unit 11, therestriction candidate extracting unit 12, etc., that are described aboveto a known information processing apparatus such as a personal computerand a work station.

In the above embodiment, the control information (script) for serverpatch application operation and the control information (script) forapplication installation operation are adopted as operation controlinformation of a plurality of operation definitions 2 to be compared.However, the operation control information of a plurality of operationdefinitions 2 to be compared is not limited thereto, and may be anycontrol information for a given operation related to the operationmanagement.

Moreover, in the embodiment, the same configuration is adopted as systemconfiguration information 23 of a plurality of operation definitions 2to be compared. However, the system configuration information 23 of aplurality of operation definitions 2 to be compared is not limited to besame, and may be different.

The illustrated components of the apparatus are not necessarilyconfigured physically as illustrated in the drawings. That is, theconcrete form of distribution and integration of the apparatus is notlimited to the form illustrated in the drawings, and the entire of theapparatus or one part thereof may be distributed or integratedfunctionally or physically in an arbitrary unit, depending on variousloads, a use state, etc. For example, the analysis target specifyingunit 11 and the restriction candidate extracting unit 12 may beintegrated as one unit. By contrast, the restriction condition comparingunit 15 may be distributed to a comparing unit that compares a pluralityof pieces of restriction candidate information, an extracting unit thatextracts restriction conditions based on the comparison results, and astoring unit that stores the extracted restriction conditions in therestriction condition storing unit 16. Moreover, the restrictioncondition storing unit 16 may be stored in an external device of therestriction condition extraction apparatus 1, or an external devicestoring the restriction condition storing unit 16 may be connected tothe restriction condition extraction apparatus 1 through a network.

The various kinds of processing described in the above embodiment can beachieved by executing a preliminarily prepared program on a computersuch as a personal computer and a work station. Then, the followingdescribes an example of a computer that executes a restriction conditionextraction program achieving the functions same as of the restrictioncondition extraction apparatus 1 illustrated in FIG. 1. FIG. 17 is anexample diagram of a computer executing the restriction conditionextraction program.

As illustrated in FIG. 17, a computer 200 includes a central processingunit (CPU) 203 that executes various kinds of arithmetic processing, aninput device 215 that receives data input by a user, and a displaycontroller 207 that controls a display device 209. The computer 200 alsoincludes a drive device 213 that reads out a program, etc., from astorage medium, and a communication controller 217 that transmits andreceives data to and from another computer through a network. Moreover,the computer 200 includes a memory 201 and a hard disk drive (HDD) 205that temporarily store various kinds of information. The memory 201, theCPU 203, the HDD 205, the display controller 207, the drive device 213,the input device 215, and the communication controller 217 are connectedthrough a bus 219.

The drive device 213 is a device for a removable disk 211, for example.The HDD 205 stores a restriction condition extraction program 205 a andrestriction condition extraction related information 205 b.

The CPU 203 reads out the restriction condition extraction program 205a, loads it on the memory 201, and executes it as a process. The processcorresponds to each function unit of the restriction conditionextraction apparatus 1. The restriction condition extraction relatedinformation 205 b corresponds to the restriction condition storing unit16. Then, the removable disk 211 stores information of the operationdefinitions 2, for example.

The restriction condition extraction program 205 a is not necessarilystored in the HDD 205 from the beginning. For example, the program isstored in a “portable physical medium” inserted to the computer 200,such as a flexible disk (FD), a compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM),a digital versatile disk (DVD), a magneto-optical disk, and anintegrated circuit (IC) card. Then, the computer 200 may read out therestriction condition extraction program 205 a from the portablephysical medium, and execute it.

With one aspect of the restriction condition extraction programdescribed in this application, it is possible to accurately constructrestriction conditions used for script verification and improve thereliability of scripts.

All examples and conditional language recited herein are intended forpedagogical purposes of aiding the reader in understanding the inventionand the concepts contributed by the inventor to further the art, and arenot to be construed as limitations to such specifically recited examplesand conditions, nor does the organization of such examples in thespecification relate to a showing of the superiority and inferiority ofthe invention. Although the embodiment of the present invention has beendescribed in detail, it should be understood that the various changes,substitutions, and alterations could be made hereto without departingfrom the spirit and scope of the invention.

What is claimed is:
 1. A non-transitory computer-readable recordingmedium having stored therein a program for causing a computer to executea restriction condition extraction process comprising: first specifyingoperation targets including a first target and another target devicerelated to the first target device from first procedure informationcontaining a plurality of procedures, the operation target devicesoperating based on the first procedure information, in a first executionenvironment; first extracting first procedures operated by the operationtarget devices specified at the first specifying from the firstprocedure information; first generating first relation informationindicating relations of an execution order regarding the extracted firstprocedures on the operation target devices; second specifying operationtargets including a second target device and another target devicerelated to the second target device from second procedure informationcontaining a plurality of procedures, the operation target devicesoperating based on the second procedure information, in a secondexecution environment that is different from the first executionenvironment; second extracting second procedures operated the operationtarget devices specified at the second specifying from the secondprocedure information; second generating second relation informationindicating relations of an execution order regarding the extractedsecond procedures on the operation target devices; and extracting commonrelations of an execution order on related operation target devicesregarding the procedures in the first relation information and thesecond relation information, the relations being common with a rateexceeding a given rate in a plurality of pieces of relation information,based on comparison between the first relation information and thesecond relation information.
 2. The non-transitory computer-readablerecording medium according to claim 1, wherein the extracting commonrelations includes extracting common relations of the execution order onrelated operation targets devices, the relations being common with arate exceeding a given rate in a plurality of pieces of relationinformation, based on comparison between the pieces of relationinformation.
 3. A restriction condition extraction apparatus,comprising: a processor; and a memory, wherein the processor executes:first specifying operation target devices including a first targetdevice and another target device related to the first target device fromfirst procedure information containing a plurality of procedures, theoperation target devices operating based on the first procedureinformation in a first execution environment; extracting firstprocedures operated by the operation target devices specified at thefirst specifying from the first procedure information; first generatingfirst relation information indicating relations of an execution orderregarding the extracted first procedures on the operation targetdevices; second specifying operation target devices including a secondtarget device and another target device related to the second targetdevice from second procedure information containing a plurality ofprocedures, the operation targets being operated based on the secondprocedure information, in a second execution environment that isdifferent from the first execution environment; second extracting secondprocedures operated by the operation target devices specified at thesecond specifying from the second procedure information; secondgenerating second relation information indicating relations of anexecution order on related the extracted second procedures on theoperation target devices; and extracting common relations of anexecution order on related operation target devices regarding theprocedures in the first relation information and the second relationinformation, the relations being common with a rate exceeding a givenrate in a plurality of pieces of relation information, based oncomparison between the first relation information and the secondrelation information.
 4. A method for extracting restriction conditionexecuted on a computer, the method comprising: first specifyingoperation target devices including a first target and another targetdevice related to the first target device from first procedureinformation containing a plurality of procedures, the operation targetdevices operating based on the first procedure information, in a firstexecution environment using a processor; first extracting firstprocedures operation target devices specified at the first specifyingfrom the first procedure information using the processor; firstgenerating first relation information indicating relations of anexecution order regarding the extracted first procedures on theoperation target devices using the processor; second specifyingoperation target devices including a second target device and anothertarget device related to the second target device from second procedureinformation containing a plurality of procedures, the operation targetdevices operating based on the second procedure information, in a secondexecution environment that is different from the first executionenvironment using the processor; second extracting second proceduresoperated by the operation target device specified at the secondspecifying from the second procedure information using the processor;second generating second relation information indicating relations of anexecution order on regarding the extracted second procedures on theoperation target devices using the processor; and extracting commonrelations of the execution order on related operation target devicesregarding the procedures in the first relation information and thesecond relation information, the relations being common with a rateexceeding a given rate in a plurality of pieces of relation information,based on comparison between the first relation information and thesecond relation information using the processor.